N.K. Das, J.
1. This revision is directed against a confirming decision decreeing plaintiff's suit for recovery of loan advanced by him together with interest on a promissory note. The defendants in the written statement took several pleas and both the courts below have given findings on different points which do not arise for consideration in view of the legal position as contended by Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and, as such, I am not going into details as those are unnecessary.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that by virtue of the Orissa Money-Lenders (Amendment) Act of 1975 (Orissa Act 54 of 1975) the claim of the' opposite parties shall stand abated by virtue of Section 18-B (8). Section 18-B (1) provides that the State Government may, from time to time, by notifications, require the money-lenders or money-lenders belonging to any class or carrying on business in any local area, to produce before such authority and by such date as may be specified in the said notification, all records relating to their business including documents evidencing advance of loans. Sub-section (2) further provides that the authority specified in the notification referred to in Sub-section (1) shall scrutinise the documents with a view to determining if the transactions exceed the amount for which the money-lender has obtained the registration certificate and shall, after giving the money-lender a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass an order declaring the particulars of transactions that are within the amount specified in the said certificate.
In the instant case, it is admitted by the plaintiff that he has already registered himself as a money-lender under the Act. Sub-section (8) of Section 18-B provides that no Court shall entertain any claim in respect of any loan advanced prior to the date of the order referred to in Sub-section (2) unless the particulars thereof are contained in the said order and all suits in respect of such claims shall stand abated.
Basing on this provision, Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the suit, in the present case, shall stand abated.
3. In this connection, reliance is placed on Shankar Ramchandra v Krishnaji Dattatraya, AIR 1970 SC 1, wherein it has been held:
'.........When the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior Court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the Court below. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior Court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the Statute; basically and fundamentally; it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and, exercised in a wider and larger sense. We do not therefore, consider that the principle of merger of orders of inferior Courts in those of superior Courts would be affected or would become inapplicable by making a distinction between a petition for revision and an appeal. (Para 6).'
4. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court, it is contended that the dispute as to claim continues in this revision and, as such, it will be deemed that the suit continues. Sub-section (8) of Section 18-B, as stated above, clearly bars any claim to be entertained unless a prescribed authority has passed orders declaring the particulars of transaction that are within the amount specified in the certificate of registration and in absence of such a certificate, all suits in respect of such claims shall stand abated. The contention is not without basis and is acceptable. The enactment is intended to save the debtors from harassment of money-lenders and, as such, strict scrutiny of such claims has been provided.
In the present case, nothing has been placed before the Court to show that, in fact, the plaintiff had taken recourse to the provisions embodied in Sub-section (2) of Section 18-B. There is no dispute that the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 18-B has already been made and the concerned authority has been specified. The plaintiff having not taken recourse to the principles laid down in Section 18-B of the Amendment Act, the claim is not entertainable and the suit shall be deemed to have abated. In view of the clear provisions, as stated above, I hold that the civil revision is to be allowed.
5. In the result, the civil revision is allowed. Plaintiff's suit is dismissed and the decisions of the courts below are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.